The Distinction Between Story and Manuscript
Someone wise (and probably famous) once pointed out that there is a difference between the story being told and the actual manuscript of words used to present it. As a novice writer, that came as a revelation to me. Up until that moment, story and manuscript were inseparable in my mind. The manuscript was the story, wasn't it?

Well, no. I'm not going to explain this as well as Famous-Author-Whose-Name-I-Can't-Remember, but basically, the story is all of the information about the characters, their backstory, what happens to them, and how events play out. The manuscript is the actual sequence of words used to present that story to the reader.

Most people--especially at the outset of their careers--tend to focus heavily on either story or manuscript. (Kate Wilhelm calls these people storytellers and wordsmiths, respectively.) But the truth is, both the story and the manuscript must be effective to sell a piece of fiction.

This is at the top of my mind right now because BU re-opened to slush submissions last week. I see so very many stories that are bursting with potential in one aspect but heavily lacking in the other. And believe me, there's nothing more irritating to a slush reader than to stumble through a story with a knock-em-dead premise because the information was delivered in the wrong order, with klunky sentences. Conversely, there are some manuscripts that would be a pure joy to read... except that nothing's actually happening during all that flawless prose, and boredom quickly sets in.

Now, I'll grant that there are probably exceptions to this distinction. Although I can't recall one to mind, I'm quite certain I've read a piece or two in which the manuscript was the story; in which everything that happened was only interesting because of the context in which the manuscript placed it. But by and large, the two are separable, and I think all aspiring authors would be wise to work on both of them.